closure of London GRO! COMPLETED

[Cockneyrebel]

Another contact has written as follows about the above:

This matter is likely to be of interest to all list subscribers
live in or visit London and use these facilities:


The Society of Genealogists is extremely concerned that ONS is to close its
services at the Family Record Centre early without putting into place the
improved digitised indexes or any satisfactory service to replace what is
currently available.

ONS announced at a meeting of the Family Record Centre Users Group on 25
July 2007 that the anticipated closure of its Public Search Room facilities
at Myddleton Street, which was due to occur by the end of March 2008, will
now actually occur some 5 months earlier. Due to the rationalisation of its
services and the relocation of ONS staff from Drummond Gate, the ground
floor GRO Public Search Room at the FRC will close at the beginning of
November 2007. No certificate ordering or collection service will be put in
its place and the paper indexes will be withdrawn. ONS maintains that the
statutory provision for the GRO to maintain a public accessible index to
births, marriages and deaths will be satisfied by the existing online images
and indexes provided by commercial companies and the provision of microfiche
copies of the indexes which can be found in some libraries, and for a short
while, an unspecified number of sets of the microfiche indexes will be made
available upstairs in the National Archives section of the FRC.  The SoG
does not believe these provisions satisfy the statutory requirements.

Of even more worry is the fact that the GRO's Digitisation of Vital Events
(DOVE) project is at least twelve months behind schedule and because of
budgetary constraints and overspend on this and other IT projects the GRO is
unlikely to find funding  in the near future to create the improved online
index search facility known as MAGPIE.  The closure of the FRC was intended
to go hand in hand with improved online indexes to birth, marriages and
death records but this is no longer to be the case.

The Society of Genealogists has repeatedly said that the closure of the
GRO's London search room at the FRC is a regrettable withdrawal of services
for the genealogical community. The possibility of new improved indexes
which would make online searching easier and improve back office efficiency
in Southport  would seem to have been only a carrot dangled before the
genealogical community. It is wholly unsatisfactory that GRO should close
its services and make access to the existing indexes more restricted by
withdrawing the paper indexes to Christchurch, Hampshire without providing
some means of improved index access for those who will be reliant on the
only means of obtaining birth, marriages and death certificates - namely
online or postal ordering.

ONS has announced a briefing paper explaining the background to its decision
which can be read on the SoG's website.

Society of Genealogists
14 Charterhouse Buildings
Goswell Road
London EC1M 7BA
---
A petition on the Downing Street web-site has been created. You can access
it
at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/FRC-closure/.

  Members (and others) might like
to e-sign it.

[trish251]

For those of us thousands of miles from London, the delay in the digitisation program is especially sad. My cynical mind wonders if ancestry knew about this when they withdrew the free access to their online images. Living in Oz, I think I am ineligible to sign your petition. I do hope it does well

Trish

[MarieC]

This is extremely bad news!  I can't believe that the ONS doesn't think it has a statutory responsibility to provide publicly accessible indexes to births, marriages and deaths.  It is truly amazing, and disgusting!

Like Trish, I am in Oz so can't really sign the petition.  I hope all UK Rootschatters will do so!!! 

MarieC

[JAP]

This is appalling.

And I am as cynical as Trish.

I have used the Public Search Room facilities when visiting London from Australia.  A very convenient location.  I do not understand why it is being closed at all - whether in March 2008 or earlier.

Cockneyrebel, may I suggest you add the words 'pls sign the petition' to your subject line - it might attract more signatories.

Not being a British resident or citizen, I too am ineligible to sign the petition.

But I do wonder what the exact wording is concerning the statutory responsibilities of ONS in this matter.

There seems to be much that is contradictory in the material - see highlighted words in the section below taken from Cockneyrebel's post.

ONS maintains that the statutory provision for the GRO to maintain a public accessible index to births, marriages and deaths will be satisfied by the existing online images and indexes provided by commercial companies and the provision of microfiche copies of the indexes which can be found in some libraries, and for a short while, an unspecified number of sets of the microfiche indexes will be made available upstairs in the National Archives section of the FRC.

How on earth is a statutory responsibility to maintain public access to certain material satisfied by that material being currently online (and not all members of the public use computers) through commercial companies over which the ONS has no control whatsoever 

JAP
PS: I would also think that there is an implication of the responsibility being for free access - but perhaps not these days.  Is ONS aware that Ancestry has withdrawn free access to the material?

[acceber]

This is sad, although it probably reflects the shift in the way people research genealogy from records centres etc to the internet. The worst thing is that there is no real proper replacement which is free to view to replace it. In light of this I hope ancestry will make the indexes free to view for those whithout a subscription.

But thank god for the freebmd project! That has been an enormous help

acceber

[MarieC]

But acceber,

As JAP has pointed out, the indexes seem as though they will not be readily (let alone freely!) available to anyone who does not use a computer, and not everybody does.  That is clearly discriminatory!  And as I am sure the British government is committed to non-discrimination, they should not allow this to happen.  I wish the petition every success!

MarieC